Call of Levi and Tax-collectors & Sinners

NA27 Matthew 9:9-13 B Mark 2:13-17 T Mark 2:13-17 P88 Mark 2:13-17 D Mark 2:13-17 W Mark 2:13-17 D Luke 5:27-32 T Luke 5:27-32 B Luke 5:27-32






9Kai paragwn
o Ihsous ekeiqen
eiden
anqrwpon

kaqhmonon
epi to telwnion,
Maqqaion legomenon,
kai legei autw
Akolouqei moi.
kai
anastaV
*hkolouqhsen autw.*
10Kai egeneto

autou anakeimenou
en th oikia
kai idou,
polloi telwnai
kai amartwloi elqonteV
sunanekeinto tw Iesou
kai toiV maqhtaiV autou.



11kai
idonteV
oi Farisaioi




elegon toiV maqhtaiV
autou,
Dia ti
meta twn telwnwn
kai amartwlwn
esqiei
o didaskaloV umwn;
12o de akousaV
eipen

Ou creian ecousin
oi iscuonteV
iatrou all
oi kakwV econteV.

13bou gar hlqon
kalesai dikaiouV
alla amartwlouV.

13Kai
exhlqen
palin
para thn qalassan
kai paV o ocloV
hrceto proV auton,
kai edidasken autoV.

14kai paragwn

eiden
Leuein
ton tou Alfaiou
kaqhmonon
epi to telwnion,

kai legei autw
Akolouqei moi.
kai
anastaV
*hkolouqhsen autw.*
15Kai geinetai

katakeisqai auton
en th oikia autou,
kai
polloi telwnai
kai amartwloi
sunanekeinto tw Iesou
kai toiV maqhtaiV autou

hsan gar polloi
*kai hkolouqoun autw.*

16kai
oi grammateiV
twn Fareisaiwn
idonteV
oti esqiei meta
twn amartwlwn
kai telwnwn

elegon toiV maqhtaiV
autou
*Oti*
meta twn telwnwn
kai twn amartwlwn
esqiei.

17kai akousaV
o IhsouV legei
autoiV *oti*

Ou creian ecousin
oi iscuonteV
iatrou alla
oi kakwV econteV.
ouk hlqon
kalesai dikaiouV
alla amartwlouV.

13Kai
exhlqon
palin
eiV thn qalassan
kai paV o ocloV
hrceto proV autouV,
kai edidasken autoV.

14kai paragwn

eiden
Leuei
ton tou Alfaiou
kaqhmonon
epi to telwnion,

kai legei autw
Akolouqi moi.
kai
anastaV
*hkolouqhsen autw.*
15Kai ginetai

katakisqai auton
en th oikia autou,
kai
polloi telwnai
kai amartwloi
sunanekeinto tw Iesou
kai toiV maqhtaiV autou

hsan gar polloi
*kai hkolouqoun autw.

16kai
grammateiV
twn Farisaiwn*
kai idonteV
oti hsqiein meta
twn telwnwn
kai amartwlwn

elegon toiV maqhtaiV
autou
Dia ti
meta twn telwnwn
kai amartwlwn
esqiei
o didaskaloV umwn;
17kai akousaV
o IhsouV legei
autoiV

Ou crian ecousin
oi iscuonteV
iatrou all
oi kakwV econteV.
ouk hlqon
kalesai dikaiouV
alla amartwlouV.

13Kai
exhlqen
palin
para thn qalassan
kai paV o ocloV
hrceto proV auton,
kai edidasken autoV.

14kai paragwn

eiden
Leuein
ton tou Alfaiou
kaqhmonon
epi to telwnion,

kai legei autw
Akolouqei moi.
kai
anastaV
*hkolouqhsen autw.*
15Kai geinetai

katakeisqe auton
en th oikia autou,
kai
polloi telwnai
kai amartwloi
sunanekeinto tw Iesou
kai toiV maqhtaiV autou

hsan gar polloi
*kai hkolouqoun autw

16kai
oi grammatiV
twn Fareisewn.*
kai idonteV
oti hsqiein meta
twn amartwlwn
kai twn telwnwn

elegon toiV maqhtaiV
autou
*oti*
meta twn telwnwn
kai twn amartwlwn
esqiei
kai pinei.
17kai akousaV
o IhsouV legei
*oti*

Ou crian ecousin
oi iscuonteV
iatrou all
oi kakwV econteV.
ouk hlqon
kalesai dikaiouV
alla amartwlouV.

13Kai
exhlqen

para thn qalassan
kai paV ocloV
hrceto proV auton,
kai edidasken autoV.

14kai paragwn

eiden
Iakwbon
ton tou Alfaiou
kaqhmonon
epi to telwnion,

kai legei autw
Akolouqei moi.
kai
anastaV
*hkolouqhsen autw.*
15Kai egeneto

katakeimenwn autwn
en th oikeia autou,

polloi telwnai
kai amartwloi
sunanekeinto tw Iesou
kai toiV maqhtaiV autou

hsan gar polloi oi
*kai hkolouqhsan autw

16kai
oi grammateiV
kai oi Farisaioi.*
kai eidan
oti hsqiein meta
twn amartwlwn
kai twn telwnwn
kai
elegon toiV maqhtaiV
autou,
Dia ti
meta twn amartwlwn
kai telwnwn
esqiei;

17kai akousaV
o IhsouV legei,

Ou creian ecousin
oi iscuonteV
iatrou all
oi kakwV econteV.
ouk hlqon
kalesai dikaiouV
alla amartwlouV.

13Kai
exhlqen
palin
para thn qalassan
kai paV o ocloV
hrceto proV auton,
kai edidasken autoV.

14kai paragwn

eiden
Leuein
ton tou Alfaiou
kaqhmonon
epi to telwnion,

kai legei autw
Akolouqei moi.
kai
anastaV
*hkolouqei autw.*
15Kai geinetai

anakeimenwn autwn
en th oikeia,

polloi telwnai
kai amartwloi
sunanekeinto tw Iesou
kai toiV maqhtaiV autou

hsan gar polloi
*kai hkolouqhsan autw.*

16kai
oi grammateiV
twn Farisaiwn




elegon toiV maqhtaiV
autou,
Dia ti
meta twn telwnwn
kai amartwlwn
esqiei;

17kai akousaV
o IhsouV legei,

Ou creian ecousin
oi iscuonteV
iatrou alla
oi kakwV econteV.
ouk elhluqa
kalesai dikaiouV
alla amartwlouV.

27Kai
elqwn
palin
para thn qalassan
ton *epakolouqounta
autw
* ocloV
edidasken.

kai paragwn

eiden
Leuei
ton tou Alfaiou
kaqhmonon
epi to telwnion,

kai legei autw
Akolouqei moi.
28kai katalipwn
panta
anastaV
*hkolouqei autw.*
29Kai epoihsen
Leuei dochn
autw megalhn
en th oikeia autou
kai hn
ocloV
poluV tekwnwn
kai allwn
anakeimenwn.




30kai
oi Farisaioi kai
oi grammateiV egogguzon





proV touV maqhtaV
autou legonteV,
Dia ti
meta twn telwnwn

esqietai
kai peinet
ai;
31apokriqeiV de
o IhsouV eipen
proV autoV
Ou creian ecousin
oi ugiainonteV
iatrou all
oi kakwV econteV.
32ouk hlqon
kalesai dikaiouV
alla amartwlouV
eiV metanoian.
27Kai meta tauta
exhlqen




kai

eqeasato telwnhn
onomati
Leuein

kaqhmonon
epi to telwnion,

kai legei autw
Akolouqi moi.
28kai katalipwn
apantaV anastaV
*hkolouqhsen autw.*
29Kai epoihsen
dochn megalhn
LeueiV

en tw oikw autou
kai hn
ocloV
poluV tekwnwn
oi hsan met
autwn katakeimenoi.




30kai egogguzon
oi Farisaioi kai
oi grammateiV




proV touV maqhtaV
autou legonteV,
Dia ti
meta twn telwnwn
kai amartwlwn
esqietai
kai pinete
;
31kai apokriqeiV
o IhsouV eipen
proV autoV
Ou crian ecousin
oi ugiainonteV
iatrou all
oi kakwV econteV.
32ouk elhluqa
kalesai dikaiouV
alla asebeiV*
eiV metanoian.
27Kai metauta
exhlqen




kai

eqeasato telwnhn
onomati
Leuein

kaqhmonon
epi to telwnion,

kai eipen autw
Akolouqei moi.
28kai katalipwn
panta
anastaV
*hkolouqei autw.*
29Kai epoihsen
dochn megalhn
LeueiV
autw
en th oikia autou
kai hn
ocloV
poluV tekwnwn
kai allwn oi hsan met
autou katakeimenoi.




30kai egogguzan
oi Fareisaioi kai
oi grammateiV autwn





proV touV maqhtaV
autou legonteV,
Dia ti
meta twn telwnwn
kai amartwlwn
esqiete
kai
peinete;
31kai apokriqeiV
IhsouV eipen
proV autoV
Ou creian ecousin
oi ugiainonteV
iatrou alla
oi kakwV econteV.
32ouk elhluqa
kalesai dikaiouV
alla amartwlouV
eiV metanoian.

Notes:

Here are a few comments about the Call of Levi and Tax-collectors & Sinners pericope. I have inserted an extra "guest column" for this series of pericopes from papyrus P88 to provide additional information about the structure.

1. The Call of Levi and Tax-collectors & Sinners should be regarded as one pericope. The narrative structure is similar to the call of Simon and Andrew, followed closely by the call of James and John. The unity of the structure is also evident from the spacing between pericopes in the original manuscripts.

2. The setting of the story is different in the gospels. Matthew and Luke have the setting in Capernaum as a continuation of a series of controversy stories beginning with the Healing of the Paralytic. Mark's setting is beside the sea where Jesus has gone to teach. It's likely that the seaside setting is more original. Matthew and Luke have streamlined this seemingly unnecessary change in location. Interestingly, D Luke 5:27 also has the seaside teaching. This is usually regarded as a conflation with Mark. However, it could also be evidence of a recension in Alexandrian Luke.

3. The multiple identities of the tax-collector in Mt 9:9/Mk 2:14/Lk 5:27 implies the existence of several parallel versions. The two most common are of course Matthew in the gospel of Matthew and Levi in Mark and Luke. Both versions appear in the Diatessaron. Levi is referred to as the son of Alphaeus in Mark and the Diatessaron. However, the list of candidates is even more complicated. D and Q Mark 2:14 name James the son of Alphaeus as the tax-collector. This James appears in the list of apostles of all three evangelists. Jerome mentions Matthias as the tax-collector in the gospel of the Hebrews. Matthias, who was appointed as the replacement for Judas Iscariot in Acts 1:23-26, is mentioned in the Clementine Recognitions as having the surname Barnabus.

4. The gathering of the tax-collectors at table in Mt 9:10/Mk 2:15/Lk 5:29 shows interesting variations and evidence of the conflation of two versions of the pericope in Mark. The tax-collectors are sitting at table in Matthew, W Mark, and D Luke, and they are reclining at table in Alexandrian Mark, D Mark, and Alexandrian Luke. Luke has modified the story into a banquet at Levi's house, a characteristic motif of Luke's redaction. The location is ambiguous in the other versions; it could be taken to be either Levi's or Jesus' house. There is a possible conflation of the ending of Lk 5:29 in B, which appears to combine the endings of D and .

5. There appears to be an insertion of text from Matthew (or pre-Mt) into Mark 2:15 polloi telwnai kai amartwloi sunanekeinto tw Iesou kai toiV maqhtaiV autou, creating a problematic doublet which the different "text-tendencies" have resolved in various ways. The Alexandrian text, represented here by B, , and P88, has Jesus reclining at table katakeisqai auton / katakeisqe auton, where he is joined by tax-collectors and sinners. The presence of a kai before polloi, similar to Matthew 9:11, allows this to be a smooth transition. However, in the Western text of D and W Mark 2:15, they are reclining (or sitting) at table, causing a duplication with the Matthean text that follows. The Western text resolves this problem by removing the kai before polloi to create an independent clause that restates the assembly of the group of tax-collectors and sinners. The possible insertion is reminiscent of the introduction to the Capernaum Demoniac in Mt 7:29/Mk 1:22b, where Mark has wording identical to Matthew, even though Matthew's version is found in a completely different context.

6. Mt 9:11/Mk 2:16/Lk 5:30, respectively, have the Pharisees, the scribes of the Pharisees, or both the Scribes and Pharisees questioning Jesus' disciples about his association with tax-collectors and sinners. However, a comparison of B, / P88, D, and W Mark, reveals two different structures. / P88 and D Mk 2:16 have an extra "kai", kai idonteV / kai eidan (and seeing / and they saw), respectively, that completely changes the meaning. The passage now reads hsan gar polloi kai hkolouqoun autw kai oi grammateiV twn Farisai, kai eiden oti... (for there were many and they were following him, even the scribes of the Pharisees, and they saw that...). The addition of one "kai" changes the scribes from antagonists into followers! The antagonists are an unnamed party, presumably the Pharisees, who were unhappy about losing their scribes to Jesus. W Mark has the other version, where the scribes are antagonists that question Jesus. B Mark appears to be a hybrid of the two versions. (Note the position of the asterisks.) Also, B Mark 2:16 has esqiei against the more archaic (Attic) hsqiein in , P88, and D.

7. The question Oti in B Mark 2:16 has been recognized as an awkward construction. This awkwardness is caused by two conflated versions of the pericope, one asks a question (What), while the other makes a statement (that). P88 shows the structure of the statement version. Note the use of the connecting word oti (that) in three places indicated by asterisks. The other major change caused by the use of kai idonteV is that the expression following the second "oti" in Mk 2:16, oti esqiein meta twn amartwlwn kai twn telwnwn (that they eat with the sinners and the tax-collectors) is now a statement instead of a question. The alternative version is shown most clearly by W Mark. The scribes of the Pharisees interrogate the disciples, beginning the question with Dia ti (Why). The interrogative version is a minor agreement with Matthew and Luke, and it is also found in Mark, so it has broad textual support. This is a prime example of why B Mark should be used with caution as the concensus text of Mark when its readings are difficult to interpret.

8. There are some minor variations in vocabulary worth mentioning.
a. There is evidence of harmonization in B Mark 2:17 where B has autoiV oti while has autoiV and P88 has oti (and D, W have neither).

b. Mark 2:17 has o didaskaloV umwn (the teacher of you) as a harmonization to Matthew 9:11, while P88 has kai pinei (and drinks) in agreement with Luke. has a tendency to agree with Matthew where the text of Mark is uncertain. The question Dia ti and the omission of twn from kai twn amartwlwn may also be harmonizations of Mk 2:17 to Matthew. The addition of kai pinei in P88 is said to be Byzantine. If it is, it must be an early variant. The text has not completely undergone the "ei" to "i" vowel transition. This is a rare example of and P88 going their separate ways with additions to the text of Mark.

c. D Luke 5:32 has ouk hlqon (I came not) in agreement with Mark while W Mark 2:17 has ouk elhluqa (I have not come) in agreement with Alexandrian Luke. Codex W in Mark 1:17 to 5:7 shares many more readings with Alexandrian and/or Western Luke than does Alexandrian Mark. Does this imply that a text very similar to W Mark, a Deutero-Mark, was the precursor for Luke, or are these harmonizations to Luke? If they are simple harmonizations, why are they to both the Alexandrian and Western text-types?

d. D Luke 5:30 mentions only the tax-collectors twn telwnwn, whereas Alexandrian Luke has both tax-collectors and sinners. This may be a harmonization of Alexandrian Luke to Mt 9:11. There is no reason for an omission.

e. * has the interesting variant asebeiV (ungodly) in Lk 5:32 which appears elsewhere only in Jude 1:4 and 1:15. Luke 5:32 adds the words eiV metanoian (to repentance), which is a major theme for Luke. The Lukan version is quoted in the Justin Martyr in his First Apology 1.15:8 in agreement with D, and as such is the earliest homiletic witness to Luke's gospel in the second century.

9. A few words about textual criticism are in order.
a. This pericope has one of the highest levels of triple agreement in the gospels. Even here, however, there is some evidence for multiple versions that don't fall cleanly within text-types. In Mark 2:16 the scribes first think to themselves that the disciples are eating with tax-collectors and sinners and then immediately say it. This type of doublet is a characteristic of the Son of Man material in Mark and could be further evidence for two harmonized versions. The composition of Luke can be explained very well in this pericope using Mark alone as a source. This is a good example in support of Markan priority.

b. In the dialogue of the story, the critics speak to the disciples and Jesus overhears, whereas in the controversy stories that follow, they complain directly to Jesus. Some of the scribes are also followers, at least in the Alexandrian version, whereas they are adversaries in other stories. From a form-critical perspective, does this point to a difference in sources?